What would motivate a person to concoct a fairy tale to rationalize a new impetus to control the behavior of fellow individuals and the economic system which feeds them? Who would present sketchy details to substantiate a framework for altering the course of human activity and, rather cleverly, assign the blame and necessity for this radical change to the humans themselves?
What kind of people would elevate the object in question to cultic-diety status and become deeply emotionally involved in silencing dissent and relegating detractors to simply evil, greedy unbelievers?
Check out a proposed solution to this, the latest in a string of enviro-disasters supposedly brought on by people like you and me:
__________________________________________________________
There are 1.3 billion cows on this planet, and every year each cow produces about 90kg of methane, and as greenhouse gases go, methane is about 24 times worse than CO2 in sealing the heat in the air. According to a recent report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, agriculture produces 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent — and that, my friends, is more than is produced by the entire human transport industry.
Think of it: for every cow you killed, you would be ridding the world of 90kg of methane a year — easily enough, surely, to justify an Easyjet flight.
Now it may be that you are repelled by the idea of killing a cow, and you may think that the poor farmers will only be driven to breed a new one to replace it. But there are still plenty of other things you could do that would make more sense than planting trees with these carbon offset companies. You could make sure that your house was properly insulated.
You could turn down the central heating and wear more sweaters; and if you really wanted to tackle global CO2 emissions, you would campaign for nuclear energy, since power production is responsible for 24 per cent of global emissions.
Or better still you could help do something to stop Third World countries from burning the forests, which produces 18 per cent of CO2.
But, of course, people aren’t interested in these kinds of facts. They want the religion. They want the sweet moralistic feeling of telling someone to stop doing something. They want to be able to rage about Chelsea Tractors and Tony Blair’s flights, and they want to give vent to their feelings of disgust at the whole triumph of Western consumerist capitalism; and what worries me is that, in the end, the moralising mumbo-jumbo becomes more important than the scientific reality.
We face huge decisions, such as whether or not to allow scientists to use human genetic material in animal cells; and I want those decisions taken on the basis of whether or not the advance can help cure disease, not on the basis of “Frankenbunny” headlines.
We should cease our pagan yammering for sacrifice, and look at what the science really demands. It is a sign of our terrifying ignorance that so many would still prefer to plant a heat-producing tree than see the wisdom of the ancients, and kill a flatulent cow.
Boris Johnson is MP for Henley
Read the full article here.

February 15, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hi Hank — your new layout rocks:)
Anyway, just because you have been posting some environmental treats for everyone, I thought maybe I should share a poem with you:) This poem can be found on signs which we can read every time we go to the dump to rid ourselves of the garbage we collect. Ready? Here goes:
Throw it away?
There is no away …
Think about that …
Recycle today!
I’m telling you what — if we didn’t have other places to get to on a Saturday morning, such as that freaking Wal-Mart store, we might just empty our trash bags and start sorting out soda cans. That poem just moves us that way — I guess :)
February 15, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Go veggie – but how many people do you imagine giving up the BBQ steaks for grilled quorn ? It’s the way to go, but surely it’ll take longer to catch on than fuel efficient driving and carbon-offsetting ?
February 15, 2007 at 11:49 pm
It is so sad that the debate regarding global warming is not really about the data, but rather about the interpretation and analysis of the data. It’s not about whether or not the sky is blue – it’s about whether or not the sky is falling.
February 16, 2007 at 3:06 am
Hi Tammi,
I’ve never recycled. Do I feel guilty about that? NO.
I do feel guilty about running the shower until it gets hot before I get in.
I would feel guilty, so I just don’t do it, running the water in the sink while I shaved.
I do leave a large carbon footprint everytime I driveand I’ll never drive a small car again.It’s dangerous.
I also feel friendly when I see the neighbors putting out plastic, glass and newspapers (sorted) in a county provided plastic bin.
I never litter. No one Should. When the litter bag in my vehicle gets full, I just toss it out the window.
I’m preparing for the equivalent of the Saudi Morality Police to make rounds on recycled day giving out tickets. Better than a sentence of stoning to death, I suppose.
Your a softhearted gal, I’m surprised you don’t rinse out plastic milk jugs and sort cans and bottles and all that stuff.
Point taken that life can be just too hectic to accomodate an uneccessary, feel good chore. There are 10’s and 10’s of thousands of square miles of places to put our junk, and then build a golf course on.
=;-)~
February 16, 2007 at 3:14 am
Hi John,
Welcome.
I just glanced at your blog and it seems you’ve spent a good bit of time and effort to understand climate change and that you totally accept the idea of a human footprint as the primary cause for what I view as a minimal degree of natural change, that wouldn’t be inched one way or the other no matter what man does, short of nuclear war.
So, that means we might have some great debate type exchanges as time goes on.
Good point about the steaks. Is there anything better than a med-rare anything on the barbie?
Thanks for stopping by and your welcome back at your leisure.
Hank
February 16, 2007 at 3:23 am
Hi Civus,
Opinion and emotional involvement vary from person to person.
Some are concerned citizens of the planet who see no sense doing anything stupid to wreck the environment or waste resources. They recycle, use as little as possible in a frugal, saver kind of way and appreciate anyone who pitches in to help in the noble struggle to take care of our earth.
Then there are the gung ho, enviro-worshippers, on a faith-based mission to enslave mankind with rules, taxes, regulations and the sickest kind of micromanagement desigened to thwart democracy, capitalism and personal property rights. These, generally are the New Left commies that found a home in environmentalism.
Most fall in the middle somewhere.
As usual, moderation in all things is good advice. If only the eco-socialists weren’t involved, the whole climate change foolishness would go away.
I’m not holding my breath.
Hank
February 16, 2007 at 4:38 am
[...] in Hattiesburg, I can plainly see , Gulf Coast Pundit, Doug Ross, In the bullpen, The Hill Chronicles, Morning [...]
February 16, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hi Hank
When the litter bag in my vehicle gets full, I just toss it out the window.
Good one, that will bring a smile the rest of the day… thanks.
Lord Crimson
February 16, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Thanks LC
A stolen Steve Martin joke from the late 70’s.
=;-)~
February 16, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I take your point about eco-socialists. Some life-style changes just aren’t practical. However, I can’t accept “If only the eco-socialists weren’t involved, the whole climate change foolishness would go away”. Maybe it’s ’cause I’m a scientist by training, but when several thousand of them from various disciplines get together, pool data and conclude the same thing you gotta reckon somethings going on…
February 16, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Hey, your blog is a keeper. I’m putting you on my sidebar blog list. You are right on! Great site.
February 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I’m hoping that the Progressive Democrats such as Algore, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi go so far as volunteering to be processed into Soylent Green.
February 16, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Methane is actually 60 times as effective as CO2. Not only do cows pass gas a lot, where does the gas come from? What they eat. What do they eat? Grass. What is grass? A green plant. What do green plants do? Take in CO2 from the air. Cows are doubly harmful.
A factsheet on Global Warming:
http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2007/02/factsheet.html
February 16, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I’m a vegetarian, in part for environmental reasons. Mostly, though, I see the power of the free market and simply cannot help myself. :) (If people stop eating meat, meat producers will either go out of business or make organic products, and small businesses will start to provide alternate foods to us herbivores. Why regulate when the free market provides the ultimate smackdown?)
I’m all for nuclear power. I would much prefer that to, say, building dams or burning fossil fuels. Incidentally, it would also make the electric car more feasible: we all agree that it’s silly to power a car with electricty, when the electric plant down the street is spewing pollutants into the air. Anyway….
The most energy-efficient city in the US is NYC. If you are really concerned about the earth, move into a 700 sq. ft. apartment, walk or take public transportation all day, sell your car, and live side-by-side with millions of other people so that heat lost from you or your house goes to heat someone else’s house. I don’t see the liberals advocating for super-dense housing, mixed-use zoning, and the like.
February 17, 2007 at 12:45 am
I’m thinking this might be a squatter’s paradise for these folk:)
I’m guess I’m not really that concerned with the environment:)
I’ll stay in WY and continue driving my 4×4 GMC to work for 10 blocks or so.
February 17, 2007 at 12:48 am
oops Hank — copied and pasted too much in that quote. The freegan thing goes on a different comment on a different blog :) Feel free to delete that part for me. Thanks :)
February 17, 2007 at 12:50 am
Though the misplaced link above is kind of fitting for a thread on environmentalism. Freegans are very environmentally friendly. Freaking retarded, but environmentally friendly.
February 17, 2007 at 4:06 am
Hi John,
A friendly reminder that the findings of years of study haven’t been released yet, only the used car salesman analysis that there’s a 90% probability of 20 foot waves crashing into the 4th floor of the Empire State building, eventually.
How clever to toss out a number and let the trash talking begin before anyone has any data whatsoever. My favorite science term is “peer review”. Does that mean if I can get enough people to agree with me, after they’ve reviewed my findings, I would be justified? I mean, isn’t PR a formality among colleagues? Especially if they all get their funding from the same places?
Forgive my cynicism. I’ve seen one too many hysterical hoaxes from these same people before.
I agree something’s going on and I’m anxiously awaiting a number. Are temps rising, falling or remaining unchanged?
I suspect unchanged or a tiny movement. Hence the 90% nonsense. Ultimately, the change doesn’t matter. Blaming humans and imposing tax and reordering behavior do.
Let’s wait and see.
Hank
February 17, 2007 at 4:11 am
Thanks Mick!
Always pleasant to come across a fellow traveler of like mind.
I’ve added you to my blogroll as well.
Hank
ps I saw Soylent Green the first time at the movie theatre. $10 used to get you and your date tickets, jumbo popcorn and cokes. Sigh.
February 17, 2007 at 4:28 am
Hi Bridget,
I agree. Nuclear would be all over the earth if it weren’t for these same GW nitwits fistfighting to prevent it’s use.
Speaking of eating meat, I saw a segment of a news show that featured PETA’s “aked state of the union” to draw attention to the method of killing chickens that KFC uses. PETA wants chickens anesthetized before slaughter. No biggie there, but let’s face it, will that be enough? No one anywhere eating beef, chicken, pork, fish or anything other than leafy veggies and nuts is their goal. Then, I’m sure they would think of more control freak restrictions and rules for people to follow.
Seem’s the thread of authoritarianism runs through all activists of the liberal do-gooder type.
I could probably learn to enjoy big city life where walking, cabs, buses and a subway were used to get around. I’m always up early and if I’m ever late, thing’s were slow at the emergency room. The heat exchange idea is efficient for sure. I gave up apt. living 30 years ago and didn’t like being piled one on top of the other.
Now, I’m spoiled.
Thanks!
Hank
February 17, 2007 at 4:38 am
Hi Tammi,
And you taught me everything I know about administering my blog! LOL
Yeah, these folks are the beneficiaries of the misguided notion that society owes it’s members a living of some kind. Granted, dumpster diving and mooching aren’t set down in the Bill of Rights, surely the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be a “living document”, one that could be shaped and twisted for the current conditions, so these screwballs may well be protected legally, if not morally.
Kidding aside, the wealth America squanders is massive, if only in the form of a days unused restaraunt leftovers or a supermarkets near overripe produce, there’s a ton of this stuff. Maybe someone benefiting from that isn’t all that bad an idea.
Not being employed, I think, leads to wasted time and missed opportunity.
Clearly, not very many sane among us would follow that path.
Hank =;-)~
February 17, 2007 at 4:40 am
Hi Simmons,
Thanks for stopping by.
Anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming is a hoax.
Just so you know.
Hank
February 17, 2007 at 6:57 am
Dead cow is quite tasty.
February 17, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I love dead cow. I use that term too. Where did you get it? I’m guessing from Chauser.
February 17, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Dead cow, straight from the freezer.
February 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Thanks Hank:) I must be a good teacher according to all these hits your blog receives:)
Anyway, I was laughing pretty hard after I hit the submit button and then realized that I had copied more than I had intended. That top sentence with the link actually was a comment to this blog. I thought it was appropriate because freegans also have a squatter’s philosophy, and I thought maybe John Edwards might not even notice a few extra
bumspeople in his house. After all, they are from one of the two Americas.February 17, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Okay — I just woke up! Here’s the link to the blog I was mentioning:)
I just crack myself up.
February 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Stupid question of the day: if you give anaesthesia to chickens before slaughter, won’t that anaesthesia stay in their systems? So humans, sitting down to a nice Chicken Kiev, will eat small amounts of anaesthesia?
Pardon me, but EEEEEWWWWWW!
The thing that cracks me up is that most far-left animal rights activists are incredibly pro-abortion… and probably the same people who opposed the UCPAA.
February 17, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Connecting the dots between radical socialist groups and their migration into and control of virtually all leftist causes from “social justice” to pro-abortion/population control to enviro-worship explains the often coordinated efforts of seemingly contrary views.
Check out this thorough compilation of these groups, people and the ideas they espouse in user-friendly, easy to follow form:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
Abortion on demand, animals are equal to people, trees are people too…you can’t get too ludicrous or too bizarre for some people.
And, birds of a feather and all. One nut draws others. Pretty soon, you’ve got a protest.
And, it’s a great way to get dates.
=;-)~
March 9, 2007 at 6:17 pm
[...] floor of the Empire State building in New York is a serious matter. After all, since we now know cow flatulence causes more greenhouse gas than all motorized vehicles worldwide, doesn’t it make sense to eliminate all meat eating? But, I suspect nothing along these lines [...]
August 10, 2007 at 4:10 am
[...] in Hattiesburg, I can plainly see , Gulf Coast Pundit, Doug Ross, In the bullpen, The Hill Chronicles, Morning Coffee, Ironic [...]